David Tua vs Rocky Marciano

The bottom line!

 

Q. Is Marciano a better boxer than Tua?
A. Yes, by a considerable margin.

Q.Does he hit harder than Tua ?
A.No, but he was probably a better finisher.

Q.Does he have a better chin than Tua
A. No, but he was a lot better at fighting effectively while taking heavy punches.

 

Why do you keep saying this like it means anything or is relevant ?
We are looking for the positives and negatives of two respective boxers in a prime for prime match up.Fan boy adoration adds nothing to the debate,it makes as much sense as saying ,
"he would find a way to win".

 

I think you are wrong on all three.
Marciano was a bludgeoner in many fights eg Lastarza,C*ckell,Moore,Charles .

Tua took guys out with one or two big shots.Ruiz,Moorer etc

And your answer to number three indicates that you're wrong on number one.

 

Because despite all of these faults of Marciano NOBODY could beat him. Not Charles, not Moore, not Walcott, not Lastarza, and not Louis. These guys were fighters to the end. They weren't all of a suddenly trash they just slowed down a bit. They weren't ****ing parapalegics. Marciano essentially ended there careers aside from Moore who went on to have much success.

Theoretically these guys should have turned Marciano to mush but reality was very different. Bigger doesn't mean better. A slick smaller guy is better than a big heavy guy.

When people talk about the speed of super heavies they always say "for there size" yeah well that doesn't mean **** when fighting someone that isn't there size. 10 lbs (from lhw to hw) doesn't nullify someone's boxing ability.

 

Marciano did that too against Walcott, Matthews, Layne, and perhaps countless other victims in his unfilmed fights.

 

Sometimes.

 

According to Wilder, the small heavy hitters are the toughest to fight.

 

The fact that "Marciano by ko" is the modal response here is downright embarrassing.